How real is Musharraf’s real democracy?

I am always amazed when people try to establish and debate whether a military govt. is a democracy or interested in democracy. Obviously, it isn`t. Military govts. by their definition are dictatorships. They can never be democracies. So, there is no point in even debating that.

Will they give up power? Obviously not. Who in any country, much less Pakistan, ever gives up power, voluntarily. Not the military, not political parties, not maulvis, not the beaucracy, not the socially wealthy and elite (Chowk crowd), not superpowers, etc. Powerful groups at the domestic level, superpowers at the international level, always do everything they can to look after their own, and subjugate everyone else. If you can become a General (though not a Captain), you will be looked after, as the common man is subjugated. If you become a PPP MPA, you will be looked after, as you subjugate your constituents. If you can become a US citizen, you will be looked after, as the USA subjugates the rest of the world. If you can become a powerful union leader in PIA, Steel Mills etc., you will increase your own salary as your organization goes down the drain, much at the expense of the taxpayer.......

Pakistan has a political vacumm of credible leadership, and it will be alternatively be filled by three groups: military, feudal-led political parties and maulvis. From a political point of view, all three are negatives. This has been proven over history. Amongst these, the only group that is internally democratic are the maulvi parties. The Army, obiviously, internally, by design, is not supposed to be democratic. The feudal parties, should be internally democratic, but aren`t.

So what is the answer. There are two answers.

- Either Pakistan has to make so much economic progress, like Korea, Singapore, China, etc., under Constitutional (feudal) or unConstitutional (Army) dictators, that those out-weigh any losses it has due to lack of democracy. If such economic growth is achieved in a ubiquous manner, people will not complain about democracy, since individuals always chose economic growth over the right of vote. As inidcated by the Chowk expatriate crowd, who (like me) gave up their right to vote voluntarily in Pakistan, to get the benefits of economic growth in countries like USA etc., where they could not vote (I am always amazed a their hypocrisy, when they argue for voting over economic growth in Pakistan, when they chose exactly the opposite for themselves).

- The second option is for a fourth political force to emerge. Outside of the Army, mauvlis, and feudals. This cannot happen in the feudal areas, but it can happen in the urban areas. Obviously that group will not emerge from the two large parties, PPP and PML, since they will do their best to ensure the status quo of feudal parties. It will not emerge from Army, obviously, either.

Democratically speaking, it can only emerge from the maulvis or from a second force. The maulvis are democratic and have some qualities that I actually admire, e.g. they represent the lower class, their leadership is not elitist etc. However, they have too much other destructive baggage like short-sightedness, hypocrisy, lack of vision to be a credible leadership. So it has to be someone like the MQM (despite all its pmilitancy roblems), PTI, TI etc. However these parties can barely win a few seats, due to the feudal system of poltics.

The only way to keep the Army out is, thus, for people in urban areas, to ditch the PPP and PML and vote for alternatives. As someone who is involved with PTI, unfortunately, I don`t see that happening. In fact, I have a strange feeling, that Tehrik-e-Insaaf - a very positive and progressive (though non-secular) party - may die off pretty soon. And Imran Khan will be reduced to an independent, just able to win his own seat or two. It has been unable to grow larger than his name, since no one from the status quo powerful political elite will ever join it, as it is against the status quo.

I don`t see Pakistani politics breaking out of the hold of feudals, Army or maulvis in my lifetime. All these groups have dictatorial tendencies. The only outside hope I see is if, internally PPP is able to get rid of the Bhuttos and other feudals and hand over the leadership to its urbanites like Aitezaz Ahsan etc. But PPP has actually lost most of its support it had in urban areas (specifically Punjab). It is now overwhelmingly Sindhi feudal party.

I always felt Omar Asghar Khan or Imran Khan would be the two best electable political figures to lead the country. One is dead, the other is very unsuccessful politically. This leaves us with Musharraf, BB, NS, or Qazi. Take your pick..........

Anyone who thinks the Army will volutarily give up power, or that elections after elections, under the current corrupt political system, will get rid of feudal politics is living in a fairyland.

Bilal:

wish you had just asked this question on another chowk...raja bazaar?...but then they would have hauled you and you would not have written this...

the occupying army and democracy is like oil and water...enough said!

rgd,

t

ps: no footnotes!

Good analysis. A unfettered process is the only way progress toward stable democratic system can be achieved.

Only when state institutions are allowed to fight for their individual entities rights will a form of checks and balances be achieved. Everytime faujiz enter the pictures they eliminate the process of institutional conflicts all nascent democracies go through in one form or another thus jeaporadizing chances for progress.

Succes indicators:

In order to gauge success of the elected Government of President Musharraf and PM Jamali, one should always look at economic and social indicators. Imho, economic indicators are good and measures are bing taken for social development.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Excuse me if I`m raising questions which the article already answered, but I couldn`t even force myself to read through it. Simply because I`ve been fed this for the last 10 years.

``Democracy is the only answer``

``No form of Government should be acceptable other than one which is democratic``

I recall Ayaz Amir once saying, how could you expect a flower to bloom out of a bud that was so blatantly cut off the stem ? But even before that, why do we really need a democracy ? Why should democracy be the automatic choice ? Surprisingly enough, the answer to it is, it`s not so much of a ``Why`` question, than a ``When`` question.

Politics is an art Sir, treat it like one. Like any other form of Government, a democracy can only function under specific conditions. Democracy is no panacea. It is not the answer to all our questions. You have a literacy rate of under 15 % ( realisticaly speaking), you have a Feudal system strong enough to knock any democracy out of power and you most certainly have no ``System of Voting``. We don`t even have politicains, sigh.

So it`s a question of whether you want one bad man to rule over you, or a whole group of bad men? A democracy gone bad becomes an oligarchy, God Bless the US of A.

When ? After we have educated our population with regards to their rights and the impact of their political choices. Idealistic ? Indeed, but that`s the only time democracy can be functional. And after all, democracy by it theme undermines the possibility of human greatness, doesn`t it ?

Slight digression, folks...

Romair,

You accused me of paranoia on another board, and disappeared thereafter. I
would like a response to my post there - it was specifically addressed to you.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Win back the trust

Sir: I was appalled by the recent statement of Mr Mumtaz Bhutto that the minority provinces should secede from Pakistan and that this would be ‘appropriate’. Nothing would be more inappropriate than what he is suggesting. Any attempt to act upon what Mr Bhutto is suggesting would be a tragedy for all Pakistanis, irrespective of their ethnic background.

While political injustices may have been committed against some minority provinces, it surely does not give anyone the right to call for secession, which under the circumstances would be an act of lunacy. Does Mr Bhutto think that an independent Sindhudesh would prove to be a panacea for all ills that plague Sindh? Does he seriously believe that an independent Balochistan and Pakhtunistan would result in peace and harmony? Even an independent Sindhudesh that Mr Bhutto is yearning for will not be ethnically homogeneous. What would be Mr Bhutto’s solution then? Will he drive out those people who live in Sindh but have roots in what is now India? Many countries are home to different ethnic groups. If every nation starts looking for a separate homeland, the world will be plunged in a never-ending war. Just because East Pakistan seceded does not mean that every other Pakistani province has to as well.

It is time for us to ensure that Pakistan means something to the Pathan in Peshawar, the Sindhi in Hyderabad, the Kashmiri in Mirpur, the Baloch in Gwadar and of course the Punjabi in Lahore. Pakistanis must put aside their religious, ethnic and linguistic differences for the sake of a better future. What is important is for Pakistan to use all its resources for economic progress, leading to equitable social development and a political system ensuring the rights of all ethnic groups. A strong Pakistan, unlike the situation at present, will be one which every Pakistani will proudly identify with.

I know for a fact that most Sindhis do not agree with what Mr Bhutto is suggesting. The challenge before us is to win back the trust of those few who seem to have lost faith in Pakistan.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
USA

Sameem:

``When ? After we have educated our population with regards to their rights and the impact of their political choices.``

This is trash talk. Please explain me your logic. Cause you have just insulted 85% of the uneducated, illeterate population of Pakistan. Only the elitist freaks do this. Are you an elitist freak? The argument that the common person doesn`t know the value of democracy reeks of sht. I don`t know the true value of many things. Does that mean those have to be taken away from me? Most of my friends can read and write. Yet they openly state that they will vote for someone with clout, with muscle- ie someone who can be crooked to get things done. Thus they favor crooked politicians over say the masoom PTI candidate. Are you saying YOU are smarter then them? That YOU can BETTER judge for THEM the impact of THEIR rights?

Idealistic ? Indeed, but that`s the only time democracy can be functional. And after all, democracy by it theme undermines the possibility of human greatness, doesn`t it ?

No, your arguments aren`t idealistic. They are deeply insulting and they are elitist bull.

Fauji Lovers often quote Ayaz Amir. Here is an excerpt of his current article from Dawn papers:

``Who says history is a great teacher? Not in Pakistan at least. If it were a teacher we would realize it is the army which requires supervision and the political system which requires freedom from constant interference.

Unwanted and ill-conceived wars, the breakup of Pakistan, the fooling around in Afghanistan, Pakistan`s jihadi image, the long rope given to Dr A. Q. Khan to become a public relations disaster, a walking bible of self-advertisement: who has been responsible for these disasters? Successive army chiefs, not political bumblers.

That politicians have been bumblers is a proven fact. Pakistan has been ill-served by its political leadership. But on any scale of disaster political leaders are outstripped any time by their military counterparts. Politicians and civilian leaders have been the petty contractors of disaster. The real big tenders have been floated by the military command.

Pakistan`s problem then: who`ll guard the guardians? Not, who`ll guard the civilians?

Elections, regular and honest, are the corrective to civilian excess or ineptitude. If one party blows it, an alternative is in the wings. Democracy doesn`t create perfection. It is not meant to. But if practised with some skill and maturity, it helps reduce the margin of imperfection.

What`s the corrective to military excess or failure? None has been discovered in Pakistan so far. The NSC will be another rope round the neck of the half-donkey, half-horse democracy Gen Musharraf has thought fit to tolerate. It won`t check military ambition. It won`t educate army chiefs to respect the Constitution and stick to their professional duties. So what will the nation get out of it? ``

Pakistan has gone full circle in my humble opinion, from sham democracy to sham democracy. Musharraf was the first Pakistani politcian I honestly believed him when he spoke, i suppose it was a natural consequence of my early preference for technocrats (meaning the appointment of highly competent people who lacked the resources to get elected) which started with Moeen Qureshi`s caretaker government. Musharraf himself came across as a mixture of what in US politics is called a policy wonk and someone with that commando streak in him, someone willing to take risks.

I think my own process of going full circle started with the referendum and ended with the Wana operation, now I see him as a personally clean man, but someone who has covered up for others corruption, a person whose flip flops in policy reflect a good tactical streak but poor strategic vision. Like many politcians he seeks short term gain over long term benefit. I do not believe he has rebuilt institutions, which creates a situation where the country is left permanently destabilised if something happens to him and I also see his supporters use the same argument used by apologists of Benazir and the not so Sharif Nawaz Sharif`s supporters. The argument ``if he/she goes the country will fall apart`` . I despise that argument, Pakistan has survived everything from civil war to brutal repression. I am fairly certain it could survive without Musharraf(or the Army) involved in politics.

Most importantly for a country with little in the sense of natural resources he sold what was left of Pakistan`s soul to Dubya Bush.

``Who cares if the cat is black and white as long as it catches mice`` Mao Tse Tung

As long as musharaff catches the bearded mice infesting Pakistan nowadays, I dont care if he wears a uniform or a suit. Once the mice are cleaned up, then he can run for elections. I may even vote for him in that case. Unless someone really good (like Stuka or Dost Mittar, to both of whom I have granted honorary pakistan nationality) decides to run against him.

50+ U.S. CITIES HOLDING EMERGENCY IRAQ PROTESTS & new cities are announcing their plans by the hour

Propagate.Promote. Protest.

ahmadzai #3: ``In order to gauge success of the elected Government of President Musharraf and PM Jamali, one should always look at economic and social indicators. Imho, economic indicators are good and measures are bing taken for social development.``

Yes. This should be the primary criteria, for countries, that do not have the pre-requisites of democracy. Only countries that have achieved the pre-requisites, will benefit from elections, after elections. Pakistan isn`t one of them. It never had them, since 47.

People should use the criteria that expatriates use when they migrate out of Pakistan, i.e. the chose economic benefits over democracy. They happily give up their democratic right to vote, to make more money in the USA. I have done that, so have so many on Chowk. After having done that, they cry for Pakistanis to give voting more importance than jobs.

I think Pakistanis should support any govt, Constitutional or otherwise, secular or otherwise, which can bring in the highest rate of economic growth, with the lowest level of financial corruption and a progressive outlook (specifically support of women`s and minority rights).

The immigration patterns of Pakistan prove this. As do the public opinion polls. I follow these quite closely. The number one and two issues in importance are always jobs (economic growth) and security. Religion, Secularism, Kashmir and Democracy are usually well behind these two.

I am getting more and more convinced of Fareed Zakaria`s thesis on this issue, by the day.

plats8 #2: ``You accused me of paranoia on another board, and disappeared thereafter. I
would like a response to my post there - it was specifically addressed to you.``

I rarely read your posts. I have a small group of individuals that I interact with, and I interact with them in quite a bit of depth. As I generally skip your post, so I must have missed it. Please reproduce the post here, and I will happily reply.

Zakk #9: ``I do not believe he has rebuilt institutions, which creates a situation where the country is left permanently destabilised if something happens to him and I also see his supporters use the same argument used by apologists of Benazir and the not so Sharif Nawaz Sharif`s supporters. The argument ``if he/she goes the country will fall apart`` . I despise that argument, Pakistan has survived everything from civil war to brutal repression. I am fairly certain it could survive without Musharraf(or the Army) involved in politics.``

Pakistan is a very resilient country. It has had terrible leaderships, yet has survived them all, from Bhutto to Zia. Any country is bigger than any individual, including Jinnah. What to talk of Musharraf, I think we need to stop looking to Jinnah as our savior also.

Political institutions in Pakistan will never develop, as long as feudalism exists and the Army intervenes. Feudals will get elected, will be replaced by the Army, yet the people will not complain, since they will be fed up with the feudals. Then they will get fed-up with the Army and the feudals will be back. Somewhere in the next ten years, I think the maulivs will break this circle, and will dominate politics, if you ask me. This has already started.

I am convinced that decent political parites, with honest leaderships, have no shot in Pakistan. That has nothing to do with Army intervention. It has more to do with feudal politics. So I gave up on that dream a long time. Until the status quo politics change. And obviously the status quo PPP and PML politicians will not change the status quo, and shoot themselves in the foot.

So the best thing to do is to look at social indicators and make judgements on govts. based on that. This includes economic growth rate, security, ratings on Transparency Intl. corruption list, reports by Amnesty International etc.

Pakistan does not really need a good Prime Minster or President. It needs a good Finance Minister (which it currently has). And most of all, Pakistan needs to ensure that individuals are given no more than one chance to screw up the country. This means BB and NS should be out, and opposed to the hilt, since they have already had two chances. If Musharraf cannot get the economy going (and loots the country also), then he should be out also.

Things like the Wana operation and support for Bush will be opposed by some and supported by others. The secularists will love it. The Daily Times editor was actually crying out for Pakistan to send troops to Iraq. Imagine what a mess that would have been. While the more conservative population will oppose. Others like PPP and PML(N) and MMA will use it to gain political mileage. I just read that the tribal leaders have asked MMA to mind their own business.

I don`t think Pakistan has given up too much to the USA. It has received quite a bit in return, also. Taking on the USA is no joke. It is self-destructive. The only time Pakistan should take on the USA is if the USA invades Pakistan. Other than that Pakistan should just stay out of its way. Neither get too friendly, nor become an enemy.

To take any kind of stance against the USA, Pakistan has to first straighten out its economy. Beggars cannot be chosers. Once the economy is sorted out, all other issues will sort themselves out. Including politics and elections.

the title would be a question that would be asked if there was actually a democracy to begin with. ask the question does democracy even exist with a president who can`t decide between a fauji uniform and a shervani. i personally think not.
i heard someone on the bbc urdu news service talk about how musharraf is the best option for pakistan right now. bollocks! if he is the only option, there`s a bloody long haul ahead.

Whether General Whore`s democracy is real or sham is a secondary question and quite frankly a waste of time and misdirected debate. The primary and the most urgent question is this: how long will it take our brave soldiers to capture this whore and bring him to justice for using gunship helicopters and heavy artillary against the citizenary of Pakistan at the behest of a foreign power.

God willing, I will live to see the day when this whore will be sentenced to death by firing from gunship helicopter. An example will be made out of him so that no future dictator of ours will ever dream of unleasing our armed forces on our own citizens.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair at # 15:

``To take any kind of stance against the USA, Pakistan has to first straighten out its economy. Beggars cannot be chosers. Once the economy is sorted out, all other issues will sort themselves out. Including politics and elections. ``

Bull`s eye.

Pakistanis and Indians living their lives in luxury in America and Europe should not be giving us lessons in true democracy (read bringing corrupt leaders back) and not imposing wars on our own citizens (read sheltering foreign terrorists). We have the right to live a good life too.

Omair: I think macro economic indicators do not make a nation stronger in the long term. Institutional stability does though, what is the significant difference between India or Italy (with all it`s corruption scandals and different prime ministers)and Pakistan. Both go through repeated bouts of leadership changes and India is as mired in corruption and caste, religious and ethnic politics as Pakistan (probably more in India`s case) the difefrence is institutions ahve some credibility, there is a accepted system of succession. It is not about holding power at all costs, and they have a bureaucracy which ensures an elections credibility is accepted. You have none of those factors in Pakistan and this over dependence on personality cults leads us back to the Ayub Khan government.

P.s: You seem disillusioned with the PTI nowadays, I hope you stick it out, Pakistani politics has it`s ups and downs and you never know somtimes people who were thought never to have a chance, end up either as the Prime Minister or leading the largest party in Parliament.

Passing by a college



I pass by Urdu College on University Road daily, and I thought as a Pakistani it is my duty to fellow citizens to tell them of what the very idea of education has been reduced to:

Often, students belonging to a political party play ``Islamic`` songs by copying popular film tunes. Then another party with an ethnic background blares music and speeches to disseminate their ``ideology`` to students and passersby.

One day, I saw a majlis being broadcast on loudspeakers. This was obviously in response to what the other group was doing by way of publicizing its ``Islamic ideology.``

///////////

Here we have pakistanis talking about the type of govt, while the tahmeds asserts that there are only a few madrassas imparting hatred, for YLH it is the poverty that is making the pakistanis jihadis, here is a gem, it is the universities that is creating the jihadis.

Hatred has permeated every aspecy of pak society. There was a lengthy post by romair about the career options for pak youth, kashmir jihad, sectarian killers, and the taliban and the international jihad covering chechniya and the philippines. It is time that the pakistanis accept the permeation of TNT germinated hatred in the ir society and start attacking the symbols of it, on which ever walls they can find.

Moving the deck chairs,

It is comical to see the pakistanis talking about the type of govt in pakistan as though it makes any difference. Zia took the country on an islamic path, all of the subsequent govts including a democratic ones with a female as PM have remained with the same policy including the honour killing legalisation. The jihadic trend of pakistan was reinforced by the bhuttos.
For pakistan no govt will make any difference, it is evolving per the darwenian selection imposed on the people at the time of partition, the firm belief in TNT. Mushy is the perfect example, born in delhi, moved to pakistan and has been the architect of the first formal joint operation with the jihadis, the kargill invasion.
Pakistan has created its own version of islam, the jihadic version, propelled from the madrassas to the world far and wide. There will be no economic progress for pakistan, there will be no investments when the ghovt is essebtially jihadic.

Poverty has increased 20 percent in the last decade and the fools of pakistan talk of pak economic progress. Only improving statistics is the number of beggers in pak streets, a reflection of the same begging to the US by mushy. a nation of beggers, jihadic republic of beggers, and the type of govt pakistan has or will have is irrelevenat. It is a darwenian evolution.

malik: and one more thing. take echosqueeeeeeeek along with you when you go to join the uzbek snakes recently captured by our soldiers in Wana. Echosqueeeek poses as some kind of a Great Muslim Hero while hiding out in the US - maybe he ought to put his money where his mouth is as well.

As for arjun: I am glad you join him in declaring musharaff a whore. You see, the moment you leave the US, arjun will wet his pants with delight - since that is exactly what he has been doing every time he has come across a news item of ``pakis`` being deported. So, please advise arjun that you are no longer a paki but some kind of an honorary uzbek, so he doesnt wet his pants anymore (his landlord has already started wondering about the smell that comes from his apartment since he hasnt had time to clean all those pants he has wet).

malik: You say General Musharaff is a whore for siding with the US in rounding up the uzbeks, chechens, arabs, and local mullahs who think that Pakistan is their fiefdom where they can walk around waving their guns to keep Pakistani civilians scared.

I say you dont have a clue about what you are talking about.

Here is a thought: Maybe you ought to give up your US passport and go join the mullahs to fight our jawans (they are all whores, remember), and maybe they will teach you the meaning of whore.

Blog from Baghdad
News you do not otherwise get.

ahmedzai and romair,

............ are you two geniuses saying that pakis are lesser beings than the horrible hindoos who still choose to follow the faith of our ancestors ?............ how did they manage to build a democracy while still running around in half naked in dhotis with little in their stomach ?..............i am sure fauji-brain will jump up and say that we have the feudals to contend with ....... so what about the nizam of hyderabad and all the other rajas and maharajas - were they born democrats?.............

.............an then there is tahmed mian who is willing to put up with the fools in khaki as long as they take on the mullahs ............. mashallah!......... how quickly we forget that the generals created the mullahs and that they are in bed with them ........ who said that bb and ns were not doing as good or better a job at running the economy than the pma trained economists? ......... the general?........ and what exactly has shaukat aziz accomplished ?.............. foreign exchage reserves?............ where did the money come from?..........hint: fe25........... certainly not from increased exports ............ how much more money is cbr collecting?.......... is the stock exchange a respectable institution instead of a den of thieves?............ is ptc, pia, wapda, railways any better than they were under ns ?........... has the fauji foundaton been audited ?...................

.............. as long as people like you go on making excuses for the goons in uniform, there is no hope ..............

hamidm #22 I realize that the mullahs are the creation of the military. But the fact is that musharaff (having suddenly seen the light for whatever reason) is now the best bet to clean them out as well. No external army is going to do it because mushy wont let them. And the mullahs are too well armed for civilians to chase them out of Pakistan with sticks. Who else will clean out the mullahs then? The Chowk Armchair Paper Warriors? General ``Frankenstein`` Zia created the mullahs, and General ``Son of Frankenstein`` Mushy has no choice now but to take the mullahs out. You need to be practical, my good humored but pie-in-the-sky friend.

tahmed,

.......... mushy is not going to take out the mullahs - he is going to appease them by giving in to their demands and institutionalizing their agenda ........ take a look : since he usurped power the people of nwfp and baluchistan have lost cable tv, blasphemy and hadood laws are still on the books, gabriel is on ptv-4 twenty four hours a day and mrs musharraf`s puppies have disappeared - rumour has it they were shot by a firing squad ............

.......... the only people who can take on the mullahs are the jiyales of the ppp, the goons of the pml and the armed thugs emplyed by the anp ............ they kept them in check for many years, didn`t they? ........... oh, but then you would say the reason the army took over was because these guys were breaking each other`s head ........ so what?......... have you never seen pictures of parlimentarians in taiwan, korea, japan, israel and italy acting like a bunch of ruffians?............. by definition, it takes time to build democratic traditions and institutions and you have to go through the process ............. if you want democracy in a can maybe we can invite paul bremer after he is done with his current assignment ................

#26 by hamidm2
//...then there is tahmed mian who is willing to put up with the fools in khaki as long as they take on the mullahs ....how quickly we forget that the generals created the mullahs and that they are in bed with them...//

Like I said - tahmed mian is the product and benefeciary of Paki Army - he owes his life to the lergesse from that establishment. So he is always going work in support of that establishment - sometimes openly and sometimes from inside a closet ( depending on prevailing situation ). Doing otherwise would actually be `namak-haram` - from his point of view.

See - he knows Paki Army is in bed with mullahs. I mean everybody knows THAT. Mullahs are ruling two states (out of 4 ) in pakistan now all because of army has rigged the election in their favor. Also the central gov`t too is dependent on their support.

And yet - ahmed mian is jumping up and down - singing praises of paki army - how bravely they are is ``taking on`` mullahs.

Pakistan has to develop an institutional mechanism for removing the role and influence of the military from within Pakistani politics. Pakistan has to gradually and progressively, consolidate the supremacy of the parliament as a body of de jure civilian rule. This needs to be done through acts of parliament, which are based on consensual politics of compromises and not on politics of paralysis, as the present opposition seems to be doing. Granted that military rule is awful for Pakistan and it has never really been a boon for Pakistan, the difficult question is not to debate the removal of the military from politics or not or cite its utility or not, but to devise a methodology of removing the military from politics so that its does not cause political dislocations to the system, which ends up harming the process of legitimizing political institutionalism in Pakistan.

The present political system is deeply flawed and the parliamentary democracy in Pakistan is prone to conflict based politics, but it has to learn to develop a style of politics, which is more suited to conflict based resolutions of problems in Pakistani politics. The present parliament, regardless of the dignity or lack of dignity of its birth, must be allowed to finish its tenure and new elections held in 2007. The requirement for Pakistan is not to debate the merits of democracy, but to ensure that the parliament is able to institutionalize its role in Pakistani politics. The real problem in Pakistan is not a lack of democracy but a lack of a viable mode of peacefully transfering power from an incumbent government to an elected goverment. It is this inability of the Pakistani political system, which is exploited as a reason by the military for periodically intervening in politics.

In this sense, the civilian governments have a share of responsibility for undermining democratic institutionalization of Pakistani politics, because they have always resisted the peaceful transfer of power. Even the mostly democratically elected government in the history of Pakistan, the Pakistan People`s Party`s (PPP) rule from 1973 from 1977 was flawed, because it resisted the results of the 1977 elections, which forced a political crisis that ended in the military coup d` etat of July 4, 1977. It was the lack of a peaceful transfer of power to Mujib-ur-Rehman after the election results of 1970, which caused the break up of East and West Pakistan.

Pakistan needs to institutionalize its transfers of power in a peaceful manner and thus, remove the sole criteria for military`s interevention in politics.

Pakistan needs to develop an institutional process of politics and if this means that the present system of flawed governance is allowed to continue, then its must be allowed because Pakistan cannot afford another experimentation in political democracy. The presently flawed system must be allowed to politically evolve and its flaws corrected within an institutional process and not through ad hocism of seeking the military`s removal from politics. The removal of the military from Pakistani politics is the not the sine qua non of democracy and the alpha and omega of democracy in Pakistan lies within the process of institutionalizing intergrity of its political process.

Ciao

mohar #28 I see you have joined Jay Thakeray in providing a running commentary on my views (which I have to periodically correct by telling him to cut and paste what I wrote, at which point he disappears from the board. I wont waste time asking you to do the same and thus prove you to be a liar, since you are just a second rank hindutva compared to Jay. I only talk to your high command of hindutvas). I see have added further insights by also explaining what have shaped my views. All this is no doubt based on detailed research, including interviews with my childhood friends.

They must grow individuals like you in special septic tanks in India. You cant be real.

hamidm #29 you write ``the only people who can take on the mullahs are the jiyales of the ppp`` I assume you mean the same jiyalas who stormed the supreme court. I dont think so! The medicine would be as bad as the disease.

you write ``if you want democracy in a can maybe we can invite paul bremer `` I told you not to go flying pie-in-the-sky (or bremer-in-the-sky).

mushy is all we have got - and his performance so far: He gets an A in economics (growth rate expected to be 6 percent this year, the second year when finally we have the economy beginning to move, and with a fine economic team that he has put together); he gets and A for relations with India (where he has done a perfect carrot and stick approach to get BJP off its high horse); gets an A for relations with the US; gets a C for fu!cking the elections by tilting them in favor of mullahs and thus helping them avoid their traditional humiliating beating at polls that they received from Pakistani voters. But we have gotten him a good tutor on that, and hopefully he will improve his grades in Democracy 101 as well. (Like all military men, he has a hard time unlearning the stuff he picked up in the Army Messes about how only God and the Generals know what is best for Pakistan, and even God isnt all that great since he has not been through PMA).

News reports today:

Gas pipeline, Gwadar port attract investors

By Nadeem Malik

ISLAMABAD: The Gulf-based investors would finance the regional gas and transportation links, particularly focusing on pipelines and Gwadar port.

``Investors from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are exploring possibilities of investing in the gas infrastructure for effective networking of gas transmission through pipelines from the western borders,`` a statement of the Ministry of Finance said on Friday. It announced the establishment of Interstate Gas Company to manage the project for gas imports into the country and for onward exports to the other countries of the region.

The statement added that Trans-Asia will formally sign an agreement with Sui Northern Gas Pipeline (SNGPL) and Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC) on Saturday to conduct a feasibility study in this regard. Pakistan is keenly pursuing import of gas from Turkmenistan and Iran to meet rapidly growing domestic consumption, with forecasts of gas shortages in the medium-term.

Efforts are also being made for onward extension of such regional pipelines to India, which is a major energy deficient country and relies on expensive imported fuel oil. Sheikh Abdullah bin Ahmed Al-Ghurair, Chairman Al-Ghurair Group of Companies, discussed oil and gas sector investment opportunities with Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz on Friday. Al-Ghurair Group is engaged in construction of 125 MW gas-fired power station at Mari. The Group is also actively considering to construct a coastal refinery at Gwadar, and exploring other investment opportunities in the oil, real estate and financial sectors. Regarding the Gwadar port development a high-level inter-ministerial meeting, chaired by Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz, reviewed infrastructure requirements for Gwadar and emphasized need for close coordination between the Centre and the provinces and integrated approach between various stakeholders. According to the official sources, leading international investors have shown keen interest in the Gwadar deep-seaport project due to its strategic location and potential for becoming a major transhipment trade centre in the region. Though Pakistan has not been able to attract a sizeable chunk of foreign direct investment in recent years due to regional security scenario (both on the western and eastern fronts), the stable macroeconomic situation and peace prospects with India may contribute in better investment prospects in the future.

The government has emphasized the need to establish a rail link between Gwadar and Chaman to facilitate the movement of goods to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The meeting also discussed the status of land acquisition for the port, construction of jet runway and availability of utility, including water and electricity.

The ministers for finance and railways also discussed the performance of Pakistan Railways and its potential to serve as a future link for trade between Central Asia, West Asia and the Gulf. The meeting reviewed the proposed railway link between Gwadar and Spinboldek (Afghanistan) and up gradation of the present track and rolling stock to create better infrastructure for accommodating traffic in the future.

For those mentally challenged, who are adament on challenging the improved economic performance of Pakistan, please click on the following:

WASHINGTON (US): The World Bank [WB] and the International Monetary Fund [IMF] Tuesday appreciated the performance of Pakistan`s economic and fiscal policies-based on discipline, prudence and reform.

tahmed`s lament :

........ mushy is all we have got; mubarak is all we have got; saddam is all we have got; asad is all we have got; hassan is all we have got; abdullah is all we have got; khomeni is all we have got; gaddafi is all we have got ; allah and muhammad is all we have got .............. do you see a pattern here?.............. we got what we deserve!

.......... so let`s quit talking about democracy and accept the fact that it is a western european concept that has no place in barbaristan .........

............. even ferozk, a normally sensible man, seems to have fallen into this trap when he says, ``Pakistan needs to institutionalize its transfers of power in a peaceful manner and thus, remove the sole criteria for military`s interevention in politics``.......... how? ...... does anyone think that the army will give up its perks, privelages and plots and hand over power to the civilians that they detest and deride ?......... now, why would they do that?......... what`s the incentive?............. verily, we are damned ........

tahmed32 garu!

``Who cares if the cat is black and white as long as it catches mice`` Mao Tse Tung.

With that logic, Modi in Gujurat should be OK as long he prevents another Godhra. Right?
As long as economy is growing at 8-10%, BJP rule should be OK. Right?

hamidm #33 Why dont you dethrone mushy, in that case. Take a flight to Islamabad, the man will be so scared he will have the flight diverted to Dubai. You will be too clever for mush, confuse the pilot by telling him you will need to get off the plane so you can get your visa stamped for Dubai. Head for mush`s office, and demand that he surrender to you, and that you are now the new Head of State. Tell him the plane is waiting to take him to Dubai. Do this fast, so Mush is as confused as the pilot, and before he knows whats going on, he is in Dubai. Have BB receive him at the airport, and she will then start whining about not being made Prime-Ministeress-For-Life, and drive the poor man nuts.

No problem.

News reports today:

President Musharraf is relative of a member at world`s top website viz. Chowk

Finally a contributor by the nickname of malik99 at the world`s top ranking website viz. Chowk recognized President of Pakistan General Pervaiz Musaharraf as his Nanihaali cousin. Calling him as General whore, he ran straight to his near and dear ones to divulge the secret. However, his sibling rivalary was shortlived as another participant on the same site viz. arjun_m immediately corrected him after consulting his mom, ``Dude: Unlike musharraf, a whore gets to set her own rate....you knew that, right?``

hamid2 laments:

``Ahmed mian is not normal. Romair is not normal, Tauheed is not normal. Even Feroz is not normal any more.``

His lamenting reminds me of that paagal who ran away from a paagalkhana. When he is finally caught by the pagalkhana people talking to a buffalo, he starts whining, `` Choro mujhay choro. Paagal main naheen, paagal yeh dunya walay hain``.

The News repors today:

PAF pilots test fly JF-17 ‘Thunder’ in China

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Air Force test pilots, Squadron Leader Muhammad Ehsanul Haq and Squadron Leader Rashid Habib, flew two sorties of 30 minutes each in the skies of Chengdu, the capital city of Sichuan province of China.

The day signifies an important day in the history of aviation in Pakistan. The PAF test pilots flew the newly manufactured single-seat JF-17 ``Thunder`` prototype-1 aircraft for the first time. During the flight, the pilots evaluated the flight performance of the aircraft in different phases of flight and reported that they were extremely happy with the excellent performance of the aircraft in all phases of its flight.

With these flights, the Pakistani pilots have joined the chosen team of ``Thunder`` test pilots, which already includes the Chinese test pilots. Therefore, from now on, the PAF pilots will regularly participate in the test-flights of JF-17 aircraft alongside their Chinese counterparts to complete the ``flight test and evaluation`` phase of JF-17 aircraft.

The JF-17 fighter had made its maiden flight last year, and tests will continue before the aircraft is scheduled for production. ``The series production of the fighters is scheduled to commence towards the end of 2006,`` PAF spokesman Sarfaraz Khan said.

He said that in the first phase, five prototype fighters would be manufactured, three for flying and two for ground testing, and a small batch of 16 jets would be produced by the end of 2005.

Test flight of the JF-17 ``Thunder`` aircraft by the PAF pilots in China also signifies the fraternity of Sino-Pak relations since it is for the first time in the history of Chinese aviation that two foreign pilots have flown a prototype aircraft in that country.

Zakk/Ahmadzai: I think the best form of govt. is one that has both an institutional basis and economic success. Strangely, this is present only in the West. Once a society reaches this level, it ends up in the first world, and then never receedes back into the third world. It is somewhat of a Catch-22 however, since to get that level of stability, one has to be in the first world to begin with.

I will post something from Fareed Zakaria, that I posted on another thread. I am now a pretty firm believer of this:

Farid Zakaria is an editor of Newsweek. He is considered one of the most knowledgeable individuals on international policy, in the USA - the country which is one of the mother of the democratic system. He is a bit of an, ``Uncle Tom`` on some issues, on my opinion, but his depth of knowledge is extremely impressive. He has authored a very popular best-seller, titled, ``The Future of Freedom.`` This book has been called, ``A work of tremendous originality and insight.`` by the Washington Post. This book was, ``a national bestseller, including extended stays on the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.``

Following is Publisher`s Weekly`s review of the book:

``Democracy is not inherently good, Zakaria (From Wealth to Power) tells us in his thought-provoking and timely second book. It works in some situations and not others, and needs strong limits to function properly. The editor of Newsweek International and former managing editor of Foreign Affairs takes us on a tour of democracy`s deficiencies, beginning with the reminder that in 1933 Germans elected the Nazis. While most Western governments are both democratic and liberal-i.e., characterized by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic rights-the two don`t necessarily go hand in hand. Zakaria praises countries like Singapore, Chile and Mexico for liberalizing their economies first and then their political systems, and compares them to other Third World countries ``that proclaimed themselves democracies immediately after their independence, while they were poor and unstable, [but] became dictatorships within a decade.`` But Zakaria contends that something has also gone wrong with democracy in America, which has descended into ``a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness.`` The solution, Zakaria says, is more appointed bodies, like the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Supreme Court, which are effective precisely because they are insulated from political pressures. Zakaria provides a much-needed intellectual framework for many current foreign policy dilemmas, arguing that the United States should support a liberalizing dictator like Pakistan`s Pervez Musharraf, be wary of an elected ``thug`` like Venezuela`s Hugo Chavez and take care to remake Afghanistan and Iraq into societies that are not merely democratic but free.`` (www.amazon.com)

Invariably Pakistanis chose economic progress over political progress, in surveys. This is most obvious for expatriates (like myself), since they have given up their right to vote for more economic opportunities. Only individuals who already have money (like people on this site) argue for democracy over economics, even though many have migrated out of Pakistan. I think people are too obsessed with miltiary, Sindhi, Baluchi, Punjabi etc. This is highlighted by the fact, that everytime I present the above argument, the resident conspiracy theorists on this site, immediately equate it as support for military rule.

I think military rule nor civilian rule, is neither here nor there. Whomever can provide the highest economic growth rate, gets my vote.......if tomorrow maulvis can provide this, they should be supported. If a labor union leader, can do so, he should supported.

India, for all its democratic traditions, is decades behind countries like Malaysia, China, Korea, Singapore - countries which prefered economic institutions over democratic ones...Now they will end up with both.

hamidm #: A quick observation and question:

I think people give two hoots for democracy (and for religion and for secularism). A comp. programmer from Tamil-land in a democratic and secular India jumps at an opportunity to move to a strictly Wahabi non-secular non-democratic kindgom of Saudi Arabia or UAE, as quickly as you jumped at the opportunity to migrate to the USA for the same reasons.

I migrated out of Pakistan to make more money and get a better standard of living. In the process, I deliberately gave up my right to vote, since as a Pakistani I could not vote in the USA. How in the world can I now argue that those in Pakistan should uphold screwed up democracy and give it more importance than anything else....

Could I ask you why you migrated out of Pakistan? Wasn`t it to make more money, like the rest of us. Or was it to migrate to the USA, to vote for the Republican or Democrat party?

Based on this, don`t you think everyone living in Pakistan, should be allowed to make the same choice that you have made, i.e. not be bogged down only by voting. And be able to select whether they want to chose elections or jobs, if they cannot get both at the same time.

I think if a person wants to discredit a govt. in Pakistan, they need to present an ecnomic argument vis-a-vis previous govt. An argument based on democracy and elections, will not appeal to most poor Pakistanis. It will only appeal to wealthy ones, or to expatriates (even though they themselves opted for ecnomics over democracy).

Isn`t it a bit hypocritical now to keep pushing for democracy over ecnomics? Now if you can convince everyone that BB and NS will raise Pakistan`s economic growth rate, higher than the current govt., I am all ears. They had their chance twice, and made Pakistan an economic basketcase. If you believe they have changed their ways, then I have a used car, and some old furniture in my attic that I would like to seel to you......

InYourFace #40 Please review the context in which I said that: far from being a line of reasoining that would justify violence of the kind in Godhra or Gujerat as you indicate, it is in fact the OPPOSITE: namely, that musharaff is (finally) cracking down on the terrorists, and thus removing the threat of terrorist attacks on the world (not just Pakistani). And cracking down on terrorists in Pakistan should have been a top priority job for for the Pakistan government all along, I hope you will agree.

Thus: even if one is cynical about the reasons why musharaff has finally seen the light (as many people correctly are, given his past tolerance of lashkars), the fact is that musharaff has no reason to protect those lashkars any longer. As proof, I would like you to remember that these terrorists have twice tried to assassinate musharaff.

And even in the march towards democracy and peace in Pakistan, I think musharaff has proved more effective than any Pakistani leader that I can recall. He has already made a sea change at the district level by introducing locally elected district executives (nazims). This has broken the hold of the civil-military bureaucracy that had its iron grip on Pakistan since 1947, a grip that was strengthened by Ayub. In addition, by persuing peace with India, in fact, musharaff is obviously sowing the seed for the reduction of military influence in Pakistan civil life.

To compare him with arab dictators (who almost invariably seek first and foremost to stay on to absolute power for life, and to then pass the reins over to their sons - as is the case in Egypt and Libya, and as has already happened in Syria), as hamidm does, is an incredibly simplistic view.

It is in light of such ACTIONS (not words) that I think musharaff is the best bet that Pakistan has at the moment. Pakistan is not Libya or Egypt, and Musharaff is not a half-brained dynasty maker like Hussein or Gaddafi.

I hope I have made this point clear.

This is trash talk. Please explain me your logic. Cause you have just insulted 85% of the uneducated, illeterate population of Pakistan. Only the elitist freaks do this. Are you an elitist freak? The argument that the common person doesn`t know the value of democracy reeks of sht. I don`t know the true value of many things. Does that mean those have to be taken away from me? Most of my friends can read and write. Yet they openly state that they will vote for someone with clout, with muscle- ie someone who can be crooked to get things done. Thus they favor crooked politicians over say the masoom PTI candidate. Are you saying YOU are smarter then them? That YOU can BETTER judge for THEM the impact of THEIR rights? (Rozaiba)

I never give much credence to ``personal observations``, I think that is the problem in this debate. The fact that people writing, criticizing Musharraf have no understanding of democracy itself....let me bring in a few ``FACTS`` for a change, from countries (developing countries, much like Pakistan) that have gone through similar periods....

First of all the situation of Pakistan is not unique, many LDC`s (less developed countries) Third World Countries have often attempted to enforce democracy and have time and again slid into authoritarianism, the reasons for which are corruption in the civil bureacracy, trust in the armed forces, etc. etc.

Political Scientists identify the recent wave of democratization as the Third Wave (started in 1974, also that there have been Two earlier waves of democratization)...

Democracy is fragile in poor countries (Above $6,000 percapita income Democracy becomes impregnable)

The fact of the matter, in short is countries like Indonesia had almost 40 years of authoritarian rule, Sukarno`s Guided Democracy and Suharto`s New oder) but their economic infrastructure and the quality of their newly instituted presidential democracy (instituded 1999) is excellent...South Korea is another example where General Chun`s regime was very successful in instituing economic growth...just look up South Korea`s GDP

In short such progressive authoritarian regimes fulfilled a fundamental prerequisite for democracy in these countries, which is improving economic conditions.....

Rozaiba, I am an elitist freak. I refuse to acknowledge people who resort to personal attacks.

Excess of information means No information. Any society that reads unnecessarily really stays ignorant. Even ignorant of the fact that it is ignorant. In this respect the genuinely ignorant is better informed than the deluded ``paRRhaa-Likhaa``--Echoboom.

( what a hoot this term ``educated``, lavishly used only in Pakiland..the educated ones. Not learned but educated ones--the totaa-mynahs, the ba ba blacksheep, the Jacked & Jilted ones)

---

Gen. Musharraf, a Mohajir of Azamgarh/Karachi origin, had subsequently settled down in Gujranwala in Punjab and prefers to project himself more as a Punjabi than as a Mohajir. He was commissioned in the Pakistan Army Artillery in 1964.

He had an undistinguished career till the 1980s, when he caught the eye of Gen.Zia-ul-Haq and Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, another Mohajir COAS.

Gen. Zia, who preferred devoutly Muslim officers in important positions, chose Gen. Musharraf for advancement as he was, like Gen. Zia himself, a devout Deobandi and was strongly recommended by the Jamaat-e-Islami.

The first assignment given by Zia to him was in the training of the mercenaries recruited by various Islamic extremist groups for fighting against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. It was during those days that Gen. Musharaff came into contact with Osama bin Laden, then a reputed civil engineer of Saudi Arabia, who had been recruited by the USA`s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and brought to Pakistan for constructing bunkers for the Afghan Mujahideen in difficult terrain.

bin Laden initially made his reputation in Afghanistan not as a mujahideen or terrorist, but as a civil engineer who could construct bunkers in any terrain. He also developed the technique of constructing long tunnels to isolated Soviet and Afghan military posts. The Mujahideen used to suddenly emerge from these tunnels and surprise the Soviet and Afghan troops. The links, which Gen. Musharraf developed with bin Laden in those days, have subsequently remained strong.

It was alleged that Gen. Musharraf also developed a nexus with the narcotics smugglers of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). Even though the CIA valued his services in Afghanistan, the Narcotics Control officials of the US had reservations about him because of suspicions of his contacts with the narcotics smugglers.

---

P.S: Crow is being served as a main course for the BaRRaa-Kana at Laal-Kurtee. Dogs, Bitches, and Pakis MUST showup in their full military dinner-jackets.

US Ambassador will personally spoonfeed the wtc-consomme.

Farrukh Saleem is a regular writer in Pakistani newspapers. He belongs to the category of writers who always complain about any govt., and have formed a following, due to their cynicism. I generally rely more on Shahid Javed Burkis` Tuesday column in Dawn, to get a good assessment of Pakistan`s economy. However, Furrukh Saleem does come up with some interesting insights, now and then. He is a doctor (Ph.D in economics maybe???). Even a cynic like him has been convinced over the past few quarters that Pakistan has economically picked up, quite a bit. As has Burki, WB, IMF, ADB, Moody`s, S&P, Agha Khan dev., Stock Exchange, Chambers of Commerce etc.

I suppose, in the long run, it is the international credit ratings of a country, that decide its financial stability. And Pakistan`s ratings with all international organizaitons have gone up, quite a bit..

Following is an interesting article from Saleem:

``A brighter future?

Dr Farrukh Saleem

On 11 September 2001 Pakistan got a new lease on life. Since that fateful day Pakistan has taken a whole host of major policy decisions. Nearly every major decision taken over the past 30 months has been good for the future of Pakistan. That is almost three consecutive years of superb decision-making. Now, that’s a first in Pakistan’s chequered history.

We have never been as close to peace with India as we are now. We have managed to leap from the status of a near-pariah state to a Major Non-NATO Ally. Economically, we are better off than ever before. Real economic growth has actually bypassed all government estimates. Inflation is low, reserves are high. Interest rates are low, Large Scale Manufacturing has gone up a spectacular 14.7 percent. Our national debt is decreasing, tax receipts are increasing. Dollar is falling, remittances are strong.

In 2001, our economic growth rate was around 2 percent and foreign exchange reserves hovered around half a billion dollars. The economy is now growing by over 5 percent and reserves are at $12 billion. Pakistan’s middle class is buying more homes, more cars and more consumer electronics. In 2002, Pakistan’s auto manufacturers sold 30,000 automobiles. This year it’s going to be over 60,000 automobiles. Pakistanis must be getting richer.

The Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) is at a historical high and property prices are going through the roof. In effect, Pakistanis are getting richer. On 11 September, 2001 KSE (as represented by the KSE-100 Index) stood at 1,255 points with capitalisation at Rs317 billion. On 2 April 2004, KSE-100 was at 5,161 points, capitalisation at Rs1.383 trillion. At the KSE alone, Pakistanis are richer by Rs1 trillioooooooooooon (1 followed by 12 zeroes) or a wholesome $18 billion.

The credit for the newfound prosperity around us and the hope of a brighter future finally stops at the polished desk of our real PM. On the debit side of things, democracy has suffered and shall continue to suffer. The debit also piles up at the desk of our real PM.

In purely monetary terms, the Taliban policy must have eaten up several hundred million dollars of precious little that we had back then. It is difficult to monetise the costs of our Kashmir policy but a conservative estimate will equate it to our accumulated dollar debt. Then there is the Bomb, throw in a few more billions.`` (full article at www.jang.com.pk)

I think if we judge and kick out (or kick in) govts. by economic indicators and not be electoral indicators for another fifteen years, we should be well on our way. After that, all us expatriates can move back to Pakistan, and start discussing democracy and elections. Everyone will be more interested in such concepts then, because their immediate needs of jobs will be taken care of.

Here is an excerpt from Washington Post of April 11th in regards to the battle of Fallujah:

[A battalion of the new Iraqi army refused to go to Fallujah earlier this week to support U.S. Marines battling for control of the city, senior U.S. Army officers here said. Members of the battalion insisted during the ensuing discussions: ``We did not sign up to fight Iraqis.`` ]

Even an occupied army which is entirely on the payroll of Americans had enough dignity to refuse firing on its own people. Yet, here was General Whore, smiling his whorish smile on American TV, telling the american people how he was using gunship helicopters against his own people.

My response to Tahmed32, mantolives, ferozk, NHK and other apologists of General Whore is this: In your salvery to West, you have lived without dignity for so long that you wouldn`t recognize dignity even if it walked by you. Truth Shall Rise. And when it does, THE WHORE WILL BE NO MORE !!!

In the meantime, continue to rationalize and intellectualize for us the murder of our citizens. Tell us about ``economic indicators``. Explain to us the intricacies of democracy.

Zain Malik

#32 by tahmed32

Ahmed Mian - seems like I hit you where it hurts most, didn`t I? Your ranting is so much more stringent and high-pitched :)

Look - you got to grow a thicker skin. Everytime somebody marks out your weaknesses and exposes the ugly mentality hidden behind a carefully constructed facade - you cannot just go sh!!ting all over the place like a raving lunatic. Come on man - you are a old man - you should know better than this.

Malik 99 # 49

You are mixing up too many things -

Islam, West, democracy, Musharraf, Pakistani chaos - just stay focused on Musharraf.

Musharraf is a typical Fauji - nothing to write home about. It was his mind set that got us into Kargil. He has violated the Constitution contrary to the oath he took - in fact he has committed a treason. He should have left the scene long time back. Like his predecessor Faujis, he has also convinced himself that if he leaves, some one may run away with Pakistan.

All his famous U-turns were not through the courage of conviction but through the compulsions of the circumstances. So no credit to him.

His only good points are that in person, he is normal. He drinks & plays with dogs. He is not a religious nut. He has a liberal streak. It could be worse - a Mulla Fauji.

That is where it all ends. He still thinks that Pakistan was created for Islam. He still thinks that Islam is our binding force. He still has those military mindset ideas about India & Kashmir - Core issue, honour, dignity, Blah, Blah, Blah.......

He needs to honorabaly leave the sene and hand over to the civilian politicians - be they corrupt, incommpoops, anything - a lesson that we should have already learnt in the last 56 years.

SIX PERCENT OH SIX PERCENT, WHEREFORE ART THOU SIX PERCENT?

This fascination fauji-lovers have with ‘six percent’ growth rates (ie high economic growths) is amazing. It reveals a complete disregard for history and the lessons it has taught.

SIX PERCENT growth is assumed to be some mystical number that will somehow assure ‘success’ and absolve the need for any institutional reform and justify the usurpation of power by dictatorial regimes. This ‘SIX PERCENT GROWTH’ is supposed to be the panacea for all ills.

Let us go over Pakistan’s history and recall the instances when this SIX PERCENT growth was achieved and what ‘successes’ were obtained.

The first SIX PERCENT period was the sixties under Field Marshal Ayub Khan. There are plenty of titles labeled and comments made for this decade. The golden decade. Decade of development. Koreans came and sought help from Pakistan for the economic model. This was the GREATEST decade ever in Pakistan’s history in terms of growth. Pakistan has never managed to replicate anything close to this. Blah blah blah blah etc. Fauji Lovers of old thought that SIX PERCENT growth would negate the people’s need for democracy or the need for institutional reforms.

The result: Break-up of the country. The MAJORITY of the country were so freakin’ sick of lack of representative government and the ridiculous concentration of both wealth and power by the elitist WEST Pakistanis, they told them to ‘FUK OFF’. Pakistan lost most of itself and all of its soul in 1971. SIX PERCENT GROWTH not withstanding!!

The next time SIX PERCENT growth was achieved was during the 1980’s under the tutelage of General Zia-ul-Haq. General Zia’s main aim was to massacre the only national political party to ever emerge since the conception of Pakistan. Crony capitalism was practiced with admirable resolve as principles were bought off left and right in the single goal of destroying the People’s Party. Ethnic, religious, linguistic basis for divisions were ‘artificially’ created to achieve this aim. It was an extremely meticulous division of the country by the establishment. Yet, SIX PERCENT growth was achieved with the help of policies of the very able Dr. Mehbub-ul-Haq.

The result: To this day, Pakistan suffers from divisions created or enhanced in the 80’s. From Karachi to Punjab to NWFP to Baluchistan, ethnic and sectarian violence has left thousand murdered. In the absence of any institutional or national platform for unity, the divisions were bound to reveal themselves in the most menacing of manners!

It is interesting to note that during the Fauji regimes, the capable and effective technocrats- particularly the finance ministers are always touted as the jewels of the regime. With the experience and education from the West, they can do no wrong. The policies they initiate make sense and can be implemented without facing the friction of varying political demands and concerns. This ‘ease’ of implementation is passed off as a victory of the dictatorial system of governance over that of the messy parliamentary one.

Yet, it is no surprise that despite two SIX PERCENT decades, Pakistan is actually no where further along the path to economic success or political development. In the case of the latter, Pakistan has continually regressed and all institutions lay waste. And because there are no institutions to provide stability, the so called mystique of economic success lasts only as long as the twigs it’s based on remain standing.

The economic success of the ‘SIX PERCENT growth’ has clearly failed to achieve any goals touted by elitist as rationale for allowing usurpation of power.

So the question to Fauji-Lovers is: What makes you say that today’s SIX PERCENT growth will achieve any more under Musharaf the usurper than what the previous far better economic performances of Zia and Ayub the usurpers?? The latter two had a far far more supportive West than Musharaf does. Are you fauji-lovers on some kind of dope to assume that an institutional wasteland is not a problem as long as SIX PERCENT is achieved?? If so, what dope are you on?

The fact of the matter is, Pakistan’s economic performance is ENTIRELY reliant on blessings of western nations. First two years of Musharaf’s rule achieved a growth rate no less than what prior regimes had achieved. 9-11 was a blessing for Musharaf much like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was for Zia. Pakistan’s economic growth is NOT reliant on whether the finance minister is Shaukat Aziz, Ishaq Dar or Dr. Mehbub-ul-Haq. They are all the same (capable, but so what?)! Most of all, if anything is to be learned from history of believing in SIX PERCENT growth, it is that it’s a baseless belief and that there is no substitute for allowing political, judicial and administrative institutions to develop!!!

Sameem,

You had initiated the personal attacks with the statement on when democracy is a good idea: “After we have educated our population with regards to their rights and the impact of their political choices.”

Here you are trashing majority of the Pakistanis under the assumption that they do not know their rights and the impact of their political choices. This is perverted and insulting!

tahmed32 # 19 - You wrote ``... rounding up the uzbeks, chechens, arabs, and local mullahs who think that Pakistan is their fiefdom where they can walk around waving their guns to keep Pakistani civilians scared.``

You are confusing americans with arabs. When you undertake the trouble of visiting pakistan, you will find that Pakistan is a fiefdom of FBI, CIA and other foreign security agencies. And yes you are right, they do keep Pakistani civilians scared.

Tahmed32 - unlike you, i am not obsessed with Mullahs, because: Kashmir wasn`t lost by Mullahs; East Pakistan wasn`t lost by mullahs; Siachin wasn`t lost by mullahs; Kargil debacle wasn`t mullahs` doing; Our national debt is sky high not because of mullahs; Our literacy rate is the lowest in the world not because of mullahs; Thousands of impoverished and loan shackled villagers in Pakistan commit suicides every year - not because of Mullahs. Its the elite slaves of your thinking that we are where we are. Its the slavish thugs of your thinking who have mortgaged our present and our future to the whims of west.

You blame everything, from your diahrreah to Pakistan`s national debt on Mullahs. You create this smoke screen of Mullahs, because you want to hide the failures of YOUR kith and kin who ACTUALLY have destroyed pakistan. Mullahs never ruled Pakistan. If they are all that you are making them to be, name ONE election where they obtained majority in national parliament.

Admit it Tahmed32, its not the hapless mullahs but western slaves like you who are the SINGLE BIGGEST cause of Pakistan`s failures.

Zain Malik

......... i hear that bakeries in pakistan are running out of cake !

looking forward to reality.

The sherade of cricket is coming to an end. The day pak soldiers captured 150 war hardened jihadists in Wana, mushy announced that he needs prograess on the kashmir fromt by June. These 150 dogs of jihad will be the first to be sent to kashmir as the fighting restarts in kashmir.

There is absolutely no way that pakistan can survive without jihad which is only a facet of the islamic republic of pakistan. There is no wy that any govt of pakistan can restrain the more than 3 million trained so far from attaining the heaven.

Only good aspect of the cricket diplomacy is that the indians by then would have finished the fencing in kashmir which can offer some protection. Fence followe by a 5 mile mine field is the only tangible jihadic border.

It is time that the pak relations are left to the objectivity of the south indians without the common cultural trdition of the dost mitters and the stukas.

I remember a conversation described by a friend to me right after the nuclear explosions in 1998. He had gotten into a taxi in Karachi and asked the taxi driver what his thoughts were after the explosion as it will bring hunger (bhook or ``pukh`` in Punjabi).. (what he actually said to the driver was “bum chala dittay nain.. hun tay sunya hai pukh aa jai gee) and the taxi driver’s reply was…. Oh.. pukh de maan di %&@%&# (my apologies to people who can’t understand Punjabi).

The point: Yes economic well-being is very important. But depending on their beliefs people can at times sacrifice some economic benefits in order to attain freedom, resist foreign occupation or strive for other higher motives (I am sure most of you can think of many more examples on these lines).

Now coming to some of the issues raised in the discussions so far in this thread.

Countries like South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia had leaders (and in case of South Korea army leaders) who were not involved in taking their countries to the brink of war in order to reap cheap political benefits (like Musharraf did in Kargil at the expense of hundreds of martyred soldiers and humiliation on the International scene) or flooding their countries with drugs, guns and religious extremism (Zia).

South Korean military leaders - be it Park Chung Hee or Chun Doo Hwan - were single mindedly involved in trying to make their country economically prosperous with a religious fervor while keeping the North Koreans at Bay with Americans’ help. At the same time they reaped economic benefits from the U.S in the shape of aid and preferred access to its vast market.

In South Korea generals ruled from 1961-1987 and by the time they left they had “delivered” i.e. made Korea an economic giant. Their generals did not rule for 10 years, get involved in breaking their country, leave power in an ignominious manner, lay low for 10 years and then took back the reins of the country again and then ruled another 10 years before ducking again.

If we are to compare South East Asia with Pakistan then let’s see Pakistan Army rule for 30 straight years and then say to us “Here… This is how a country is built”.

There is no point in comparing to SE Asia when our army runs away every 10 years after making a mess of things, hands the country over to dictatorial civilian leaders and then comes back later after another 10 years in order to make a mess of things again! Where in SE Asia do we have an example like this?

If the army wants us to believe that it is the ultimate savior, the supreme authority on wisdom, then it should stand and deliver like the leaders of Korea, Singapore & Malaysia did. It should not run away every time the going gets tough or start blaming civilians for a mess that most of the times is because of its own policies.

What happens in Pakistan is that the Army takes over and screws up the country in its on average 10 years of uninterrupted/unchallenged rule every time. (Ayub: East Pakistan, Zia: Religious extremism, ethnic violence, guns & drugs, Musharraf: we still have to see how long an uninterrupted stint he has but the poisonous effects of his rule are becoming more and more obvious to most people). When ze Generals fail to deliver even after their unobstructed/unchallenged rules, the reins of the country go into the hands of feudalistic civilians who are not democratic at all (which can be expected after years of military rule, the breaking-up of a slow, painful process and the fact that feudals and military are in the same bed when military rules in Pakistan. This hasen’t ever changed be it Ayub, Zia or our very own Kargillian savior Musharraf). These civilians rule as dictators. At times these civilians are nurtured and brought to power by the army itself e.g. Nawaz and now Chaudhry brothers & Jamali. Only when these civilian dictators challenge the Big Brother’s power do they become dictatorial in Army’s lexicon and liable to be put in jail. All this while the army watches from the side lines, waiting for the time when people get fed up with these army nurtured civilian dictators so that our Jawans can once again jump over the gates of PTV stations and generals can once again become saviors of the country. And the cycle keeps on repeating. The more things change!

In Malaysia and Singapore it was civilians who led those countries to prosperity. None of these countries went into mindless wars and mini-wars so that generals in those countries could stick to power. And what did we get in Pakistan? A screw-up of the whole Lahore peace process by our incumbent savior Musharraf who is now willing to make peace on much less favorable terms??

Another thing; there was continuity on the part of the thinking of the leaders in SE Asia. Even when Park was assassinated, Chun Doo-Hwan furthered excellent economic policies and brought Korea to the league of developed countries. Even if Lee Kwan Yu is not the Prime Minister of Singapore any more, Goh Chok Tong is furthering the economic agenda set by Lee.

Let’s see what we had in Pakistan, Ayub (a secularist, gets 11 years at the throne) with his economic brilliance but at the same time indifferent to the woes of East Pakistan and the grievances of its people. Ultimately everything ends up in ruins, the country breaks up into two and most of the economic concepts are reversed by Bhutto’s nationalization drive. Bottom line: We got screwed even with the decade of prosperity.

Zia (a complete opposite of the secular Ayub, gets another 11 years as Ameer-al-Momineen), gifts us with drugs, religious violence, and extremism. We are still reaping the horrible benefits of his policies. Bottom line: We got screwed.

Then Musharraf (another secularist, complete opposite of Zia, been at the helm for more than 4 years now) taking the country in a totally different direction than Zia.

Do we see any continuity in the manner our army generals further their agendas? No! When Zia came the officer corps was mostly secular. Zia tried to fill the army with officers who shared his vision of religion and Jihad. And now Musharraf is trying to undo what his previous boss did. Is that synonymous with anything that happened in South East Asian countries? One day the PTV announcer’s head is draped in thick chaddar and the next day we see Mujras on cable TV. This is the type of continuity that we have.

And what will happen when Musharraf departs from the scene? How do we know what will transpire if what happened to Zia happens to Musharraf? What if Musharraf and his top secular corps commanders (that he has gathered around himself so painfully since after 9-11) perish in one horrible explosion? What if a bearded (or unbearded) Mullah general comes to the fore? And knowing Pakistan’s past history it is utterly possible that this can happen.

We haven’t learnt anything from 1971. Even today people keep on ranting about the economic progress in Ayub’s days, without thinking that his policies were the major reason why the country broke into two. Yes, economically we did great (well at least the Western part did great) but YES we also got broken into two and YES the chain of events ensured that his economic policies were undid by Bhutto. We cannot just look at economic progress in isolation without looking at the big picture and the big picture includes Pakistan breaking up into Bangladesh under Ayub’s (and later Yahya’s) leadership.

Now again, in 2004, we keep mentioning Musharraf’s economic policies (most of the benefits being accrued because of the blessings of the U.S, post 9-11) and keep our eyes shut towards what is happening on a broader scale. One recent example: Tribal areas. In 1971 we were dismissing the Bengali rebels as just Indian agents and some Mukti Bahini miscreants. Our army was committing atrocities and we were comforting ourselves by saying that all this is some trouble created by India. We’ll deal with it. Yeah and the world saw how we dealt with it on Dec 16, 1971.

Now it’s the same thing happening. Rangers firing indiscrimantely on civilan wagons, Cobra gunships blowing up cars killing innocent women and children, Army destroying houses, taking away tribals’ wives in order to force the wanted men to appear before the authorities, using brute force all in the name of destroying Al-Qaeda. I remember someone on this forum saying that had he been old enough in 1971 he would’ve come out on the streets to protest the killings of innocent people and the misuse of power by the Army. Well now’s the time!

Which other country uses gunship helicopters on its own civilians?? We start raising hell when U.S fires missiles in Fallujah proclaiming to kill “Saddam’s remnants” or when Israel assasinates people by Gunships in Gaza to kill “potential suicide bombers”. But we remain mum and mute when our own army kills indiscriminately using gunships on our own people. As if the missiles fired by our gunships can only hit Al-Qaeda terrorists and the American and Israeli missiles can only hit innocent civilians. What double standards!!


And lastly, a question to people who are fine with the “collateral damage” in the tribal areas as long as some Al-qaeda operatives are captured or killed. How many of you used to buck-up Rangers in Karachi when they came storming through Mohajir Mohallas searching for “MQM terrorists”? To how many of you was the collateral damage of innocent Mohajirs acceptable in those days, as long as some wanted MQM thugs were also killed/captured? And if tomorrow things take a new twist, what will be your feeling if the same Army starts firing missiles through gunships on Lyari or Malir in order to take out “anti-state” MQM operatives? Will the associated “co-lateral” damage be OK then?

Romair #15,

``plats8 #2: ``You accused me of paranoia on another board, and disappeared thereafter. I
would like a response to my post there - it was specifically addressed to you.``

I rarely read your posts. I have a small group of individuals that I interact with, and I interact with them in quite a bit of depth. As I generally skip your post, so I must have missed it. Please reproduce the post here, and I will happily reply.``

Interesting, indeed. You rarely read my posts, yet you didn`t have any problems
calling me paranoid from all the non-reading. At least have the sense to be consistent
in what you do.

I have no desire to reproduce the post here.

Ref tahmed32 #13

[``Who cares if the cat is black and white as long as it catches mice`` Mao Tse Tung ]

That was said by Deng Xiao-ping to justify his economic liberalization policy against the onslaught of true-red Commies (Maoists).

malik: Please dont talk of dignity and engage in lowclass name calling (your references to musharaff as being a whore) in the same post. You lose all dignity yourself when you do that.

Would you have the guts to cal